Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Introduction

Hello all. Mr. Stradivarius and I will be your mediators for this case. To begin, I would like to ask all parties to submit confidential statements by email to Feezo and/or Mr. Stradivarius. As part of the formal mediation process, this is considered privileged communication: we will share the statements only with each other, and they will not be used for any purpose except this case. In your statement, please give a brief description of your position in the case, and a summary of the arguments in favor of it. You may also include your perception of the main obstacles to consensus, and any other information you believe would be helpful.

Finally, we would like everyone to be aware that we will be upholding the highest standards with regard to Wikipedia's civility policy in this mediation. While you are encouraged to be as candid as you like in your private communications with the mediators, public incivility will not be permitted. Once we receive statements from the involved parties, we will begin the public part of the mediation process. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 05:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussion Closed
The following is a closed discussion. Please do not modify it.
This appears to leave out any IP contributors, as stated in the linked pages: The action you have requested is limited to users in the group: Users. Is there a way to accept input from an IP? 99.251.125.65 (talk) 05:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC) Absolutely! Stop socking and use your account. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC) Doesn't make any difference here if someone was actually socking. there is no voting here at all. Penyulap ☏ 12:20, 19 Jul 2012 (UTC) Please don't respond to these troll comments. This editor and his ilk do this to distract and confuse the underlying issues. We support it when we respond further. 99.251.125.65 (talk) 13:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC) It's obvious that 99 IP entered Wikipedia full-grown, like Athena pushing out of Zeus's head. All of the bitterness is there from some previous experiences; quite a lot of anger expressed at Wikipedia. And 99's concentration on dispute fora, quickly locating this mediation page, shows prior knowledge of Wikipedia processes. It's the bitter tone quality and the focus on process that distinguishes 99 IP as an experienced user who is not using the previous account. "Sockpuppet" may not be the exact word here if the previous account was abandoned in good faith rather than blocked or banned. My opinion is that 99 is a sock. I think it is a matter of time until someone makes the connection and he gets indeffed. Binksternet (talk) 14:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC) OMG, my day just got a whole lot better, it's my ole buddy Binksternet how are you buddy ? I'm not sure, but I think we have a full set now. Woah yeah ! I love wikipedia, just when I think things can't get any crazier WHAMMMOO! (I may need an an ambulance but I don't give em out for nasty stuff) Penyulap ☏ 15:23, 19 Jul 2012 (UTC) Notice to this demand Do all parties understand this request is presented on this page? I only stumbled onto it by accident. Did I miss something? I am fairly new to WP and completely new to this process. 99.251.125.65 (talk) 05:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC) The filing party posted an announcement at Talk:The Beatles. With regard to your other question, you will have to register an account in order to use Wikipedia's email interface. If this is a problem, please leave a message on my talk page, and we will find some other arrangement. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 07:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC) Is it usual to assume that parties involved know there is a request for input by this method? I see no mention of any of this or that this notice is posted here (on a talk page) from the link you supplied on the Beatles Talk page. Maybe I missed it again? This notice should be made visible to all concerned and on all concerned Beatles subject matter articles. Please be aware that this dispute, should it swing t a particular conclusion, will also become a segue to change this text in quite a few dozen other articles as well. 99.251.125.65 (talk) 14:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC) Talk:The_Beatles#Beatles_mediation_notice_16_July_2012. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 18:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC) The link you provided contains no link to this request or this page. This is typical of GabeMc and he has been reminded by myself many times about links that point to huge pages inaccurately. Thanks. 99.251.125.65 (talk) 11:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Mediation bot notices

Since the bot first went around I've added several parties that I feel should be included in this discussion. They are primarily editors who have opposed "the" in the past, so I think they should also participate. Can someone please send the bot around to notify them as well? Thanks. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Update

Mr. Stradivarius and I have decided to let the preliminary portion of the mediation run for five more days. Editors wishing to participate should submit their email statements, or indicate that they don't intend to, during this time. You don't have to be listed on the case page to participate. If there are any other editors who may have an interest in this case, feel free to notify them. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 08:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

In response to the closed discussion, I wish to emphasize that mediation is not a forum for airing grievances against editors regardless of the validity of those grievances. The mediators cannot take sides in questions of user conduct. I therefore ask all parties to place any charges against other users "on hold" during this mediation. Afterwards, you can go to AN/I, or do anything else permitted by policy, so long as the privileged nature of mediation is respected.

Short version:

• Accusations (true or false) provoke a response;
• The response provokes a response, and so on, derailing the mediation;
• Mediation is a voluntary process: if you wish to end it, say so.

Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 06:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Checking in

The mediators are conferring, and will shortly be posting an announcement of how the case will proceed. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 09:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement

I have been asked to email my statement. But I don't have a statement that needs to be private. My position is that there is less conflict if articles abide by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If I am asked for my opinion on matters I will side with the wider Wikipedia consensus. If my position needs further clarification or if I can assist further, please get in touch. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Jusdafax

Like SilkTork, I would like to join the mediation and do not need to contribute an email. I did in fact !vote in one of the polls on this topic, and would like to see this through to a conclusion as I am looking forward to working on Beatles articles. My position, again, is that the 'small t' is normal and standard usage in most cases (for example, the authoritative works of noted Beatles author Mark Lewisohn) so why not use it in Wikipedia?

• My participation here has been called "wikihounding" by Andreasegde, however it should be noted that I play no favorites and indeed I took a very strong position against GabeMc's April 2012 Rfa [1], going so far as to urge early closure because I felt he was "unsuitable."

• I became aware of this "small t/big t" issue when I was asked by the Rfc bot to comment [2]. I commented on an unrelated matter on the Beatles talkpage [3] on July 4 and was asked by Gabe for further comment. The talk page led me to Andreasegde's ANI board discussion where I commented a month ago, and I subsequently !voted for the small 't' in another poll at the Sgt. Pepper talk page.

• Aside from an (already mentioned) unpleasant encounter a year ago, and the ANI discussion, I do not believe that I have had any other direct confrontations with Andreasegde. My understanding as of yesterday is that under the rules of mediation at Wikipedia, no sanctions can be levied against Andreasegde or anyone else here for their participation, and that civility standards will be upheld.

I strongly reject the term "wikihounding" and ask that it be struck either by Andreasegde or the mediators, as it is a serious allegation that is demonstrably untrue. Though I have expressed severe reservations regarding Andreasegde, I hope it is possible to conclude this matter of the 't' here and now. Jusdafax 22:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to mediation

Hello everyone, and welcome to the mediation! We have been a little slow in getting things started, so my apologies for that. I'm Mr. Stradivarius, one of your two mediators, and the mediation committee's newest member. If you don't like typing out "Mr. Stradivarius" every time, you are welcome to call me "Strad", or "Mr. S", or any other (printworthy!) variation you can think of. If you were wondering about the name, "Mr." is so that people will always know which pronoun to use, and "Stradivarius" is because I play the violin. Also, "Stradivarius" is the name of a camel someone once gave me. (Yes, really.) On Wikipedia you will usually find me mediating, patrolling new pages, or indulging my penchant for fiddling around with templates. Occasionally you might even find me writing an article or two, particularly on my two pet subjects, second-language acquisition and language education. I'm looking forward to working with all of you. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 18:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Case summary

So, let's get down to business. Feezo and I have decided to proceed by summarising the case and listing the issues to be mediated. Then we will leave some time for anyone who wishes to raise objections to our interpretation.

Participants

We have received statements or waivers of statements from all editors who indicated an interest in participating. Thank you all for your efforts. Here are the users who have agreed to take part:

Editors who sent statements by email

• GabeMc (talk · contribs)
• Rothorpe (talk · contribs)
• Steelbeard1 (talk · contribs)
• Evanh2008 (talk · contribs)
• Jburlinson (talk · contribs)
• Penyulap (talk · contribs) indefinitely blocked
• Andreasegde (talk · contribs)I was fairly confident that it would end like this. Bye-bye. :)) --andreasegde (talk) 10:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• - tSR - Nth Man (talk · contribs)
• Yeepsi (talk · contribs)
• Hot Stop (talk · contribs)
• Patthedog (talk · contribs)
• Tvoz (talk · contribs)

Editors who submitted statements on-wiki

• SilkTork (talk · contribs) [4]
• 99.251.125.65 (talk · contribs) [5] blocked for one year
• Binksternet (talk · contribs)
• Jusdafax (talk · contribs)

Facts of the case

This mediation case stems from disagreement over whether to use "The Beatles" or "the Beatles" in mid-sentence in Beatles-related articles. There have been multiple instances of edit-warring between "the" and "The" over the years, and there has been a great deal of discussion about it:

Talk:The Beatles#"The/the" discussion and straw poll July 2012

Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band#The/the ... again.

Talk:The Beatles/Archive 25#the or The?

Talk:The Beatles/Archive 19#Protected and subsequent sections

Talk:The Beatles/Archive 18#The vs. the

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles/Policy#"The" Beatles

Talk:The Beatles/Archive 1#"The Beatles" or "the Beatles"?

The most recent controversy over "The" and "the" ended up at the administrators' noticeboard for incidents, where Andreasegde received a year-long topic ban from Beatles articles, and GabeMc and Andreasegde were banned from interacting with one another. These restrictions do not apply to this mediation.

Issues to be mediated

The main arguments that we will be addressing in the mediation are as follows:

• Whether it is a reasonable compromise to omit the name of the band mid-sentence
• How Wikipedia's Manual of Style affects the choice of "the" or "The"
• What external sources say about the issue
• Whether the trademark status of the band's name affects our choice of "the" or "The", and if so, how

We will leave a couple of days from now until the next step of the mediation. If anyone has any objections to any of the case summary, then you are invited to email either Feezo or myself to express your concerns. And of course, you are always welcome to ask questions about the mediation process or about anything else to do with this mediation case. For the mediators — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 18:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Issue 1: Mid-sentence compromise

Arguments for

• Support as Wikipedia works better when we follow general consensus and guidelines. It makes sense to find a compromise which keeps within guidelines and works to minimise potential offence, so I am in favour of all Beatles related articles following the consensus to keep the mid-sentence use of the band name minimal. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC) [6]
• Support. When the name of the article is titled The Beatles, it is abundantly clear what the subject is. Constantly referring to the subject reads like fancruft.--andreasegde (talk) 19:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Arguments against

• Oppose - While this and many other articles would benefit from a better use of pronouns, as a solution to the question of capitalization it is misguided. This method only hides the problem, and the lack of a solution, from view. It does not solve the problem. There will no doubt be instances where the use of "the Beatles" in mid-sentence will be appropriate or even unavoidable. I haven't read through the most recent version of the article but already I noticed an awkward sentence in the Song Catalogue section where it is unclear which antecedent the pronoun refers to. Piriczki (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC) [7]
• Oppose. We all do enough authorial contortions when we are summarizing a multitude of sources in the process of writing a good article for Wikipedia—we do not need one more constraint, and an unnecessary one at that. If "the Beatles" is the best possible choice for clarity in running prose then that is the choice we should use. Phrases such as "the band", "the members of the band", "the group", "the artist", etc., are all well and good in proper proportion, but when we need to bring it back home, when we need to establish absolutely who is being discussed, we should be able to do so free from constraint. Binksternet (talk) 01:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - per Binksternet and Piriczki. As I say elsewhere, common usage appears to me to be the small 't'. Arguments otherwise fail to convince. Jusdafax 23:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Mediators' view

At first glance, the compromise makes some sense: it settles the issue without either the capitalized or lowercase factions having to concede. There are, however, problems with this interpretation:

• First, consensus does not require unanimity: if editors factionalize, some of them are going to lose.
• The fact that this mediation was opened shows that the compromise did not settle the issue. As a practical matter, it did not work.
• A rule against avoiding mid-sentence usage constrains prose and, from a design point of view, violates the principle of least astonishment. If a new editor sees "The Beatles" or "the Beatles", he or she will immediately know which style to use. If neither usage is present, the editor may just pick one, necessitating further editing and explanations. If the compromise becomes precedent, this will potentially affect many thousands of articles.

For these reasons, the mediators see the mid-sentence compromise as an unsatisfactory solution. Unless there is a compelling reason that has not been considered, the compromise solution will be considered ruled out for the remainder of the mediation. You may add your views on this in the section below, but please do not reply to other editors who do so. If there is a disagreement, it will be approached in a structured way. And, as always, you are free to email the mediators at any time. For the mediators — Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 04:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Your view

• Agree - Per the mediators and Piriczki's fine logic. This non-solution obviously did not work, and the fact that only one editor has !voted for it in the recent polls is evidence of the lack of community support for this approach. I strongly believe this non-solution unduly constrains prose leading to poor grammatical constructions. Forcing editors to avoid the mid-sentence usage of every band name that begins with a definite article, in every single article page on wikipedia about the band or any article that mentions one of them, is simply not a workable solution, as recent events would seem to suggest. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. You missed this on the Triangular Diplomacy II section, by Prhartcom, which says something about minimising the/The: "I've changed my mind, and I've crossed out my vote above. I wrote it before reading Andreasegde's recent edits to the article. Now that I have read a fair bit of it, I must agree it seems to be working. It doesn't read awkwardly, it reads fine. And if we fix new edits as they appear it could be maintainable. Maybe this discussion is nearly resolved?"--andreasegde (talk) 21:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

"You may add your views on this in the section below, but please do not reply to other editors who do so." Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 04:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC) ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Agree completely with Feezo and Gabe. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• Agree completely also. I hope we can have mid-sentence the Who, the Cure, the The, etc. Rothorpe (talk) 15:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: The Who's article has roughly 59 uses of "The Who" (capital 'T') in mid-sentence, The Cure has 49, and The The has 35 (all excluding quotes). How many editors (and in the future), contributing to those pages will be against any change, and if it is enforced, how many will argue, or leave Wikipedia?--andreasegde (talk) 16:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
• Agree with Piriczki, Feezo and GabeMc. Binksternet (talk) 01:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
• Strongly Disagree. So, the consensus to minimise "the" (which has been working excellently for one whole year), has been ruled out? That throws the can of petrol right back onto the fire. As seen, this problem has been going on for years, and it will most definitely arise again at some point in the future. New younger editors will challenge it. Let's hope not many of them are "warned, and then blocked", because of it. Of course, this will spread across Wikipedia like a rash. Look at The Who or The Cure to see what kind of problems will happen there in the future.--andreasegde (talk) 16:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
• Disagree This shouldn't be thrown out at the start. Doing so just forces a decision which will anger about half the editors involved either way. Undermines the idea of consensus too since there's been support for it. Hot Stop 16:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
• I'm with andreasegde and Hot Stop Disagree's. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 17:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
• Disagree as that would throw fuel to the fire again. Remember that "The Beatles" is a registered trade mark of Apple Corps Ltd. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
  • The trademark holds no authority over this discussion. Other trademarks such as "The New York Times" are routinely written with a lower-case "the" in running prose, or with no "the" at all. Wikipedia cannot be worried by the unlikely notion of a lawsuit from Apple Corps. Binksternet (talk) 18:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment. I disagree with the word "authority". It makes this mediation sound like a legal case, which it is not.--andreasegde (talk) 19:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
      • You can't have it two ways: either the preferences of the trademark holder are a valid legal argument or there is no concern here about the legal ramifications. I think we are not concerned, therefore the status of the trademark is not something that will affect the mediation. Binksternet (talk) 05:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• Agree -- It seems to me that editors remain free to structure their prose in the spirit of the compromise, utilizing whatever pronouns or other anaphora they choose. It's not that you can't use an alternative construction, it's just that you don't have to.Jburlinson (talk) 04:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
• Utterly disagree - To throw out the compromise solution, which in fact did work quite well, is a rather odd position for mediators to take. It was a compromise - meaning no one got everything he or she wanted, but it was a workable solution, proposed and promoted by people who strongly preferred the capital T, but generously willing to give up what they really preferred, in the interests of harmony and moving forward. It is simply not true that it didn't work - what is true is that some people were not willing to compromise. Please put this back on the table as a workable solution. Tvoz/talk 17:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
• Disagree What a pity the compromise solution has been ruled out as that now polarises the debate again. --Patthedog (talk) 19:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
• Agree - This has gone on long enough, as I see it. The capital T is unusual, and the arguments for it don't convince me. Trademark, bah. Common usage and common sense, please. Let's end this one way or another in any case. Jusdafax 03:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Mediators' response

Thank you all for your input. Our responses are as follows:

• [the compromise]...has been working excellently for one whole year

The time period in question begins with the conclusion of the discussion at Talk:The Beatles/Archive 25#Triangular diplomacy II in April 2011. This argument is a valid reason to support the compromise.

• this problem has been going on for years, and it will most definitely arise again at some point in the future

This will be true no matter what the outcome is.

• This shouldn't be thrown out at the start. Doing so just forces a decision which will anger about half the editors involved either way. Undermines the idea of consensus too since there's been support for it

Bluntly put, mediation is not a vote. We are here to examine arguments. This doesn't mean we don't consider the opinions of the wider Wikipedia community, but it does mean that a mediation will not be "won" because one side holds a 5:4 majority in participants.

• It is simply not true that it didn't work - what is true is that some people were not willing to compromise

These are the same thing. A compromise cannot be said to work if some people were not willing to compromise.

• generously willing to give up what they really preferred, in the interests of harmony and moving forward

This is why the compromise must be addressed first, before considering the arguments for capitalized vs. lowercase. It will otherwise be an attractive refuge for a faction that sees itself in danger of losing.

Essentially, the mediators do not see that the arguments in favor of the compromise outweigh the arguments against it. As the participants in this case are closely split on the issue, there is no way to satisfy all parties. Although there was consensus for the compromise in early 2011, when it received 17/4 support/oppose in the triangular diplomacy poll, it has since become significantly less popular, receiving a single vote in the RfC at Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band#Straw Poll out of 33 for lowercase and 21 for capitalized. Although some editors have objected to how the RfC was run, a position with less than 2% support clearly does not have consensus. The problem with the compromise — that it will impose hidden language constraints on potentially many, many articles — remains unaddressed. If you still have objections, you may voice them below.

We must finally state categorically that the mediators can in no way undermine consensus — our decision applies only in the context of this mediation. You are free to try to establish support for your position elsewhere.

For the mediators — Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 19:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Postscript: In case this wasn't clear, "less than 2% support" refers to the "Maintain" option, which received one vote out of 55 cast. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 20:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Your response

• Agree with the position of the mediators. As only one editor has recently !voted to "maintain" this non-solution, I think it is safe to say that there is currently virtually zero community support for "triangular diplomacy" at this time. That, taken with a weak rationale for the "compromise", makes taking this option off the table clearly the most sensible choice moving forward. Further, I would suggest that "triangular diplomacy" is not even really a compromise at all, as in practice it actually results in articles with all upper-case definite articles and no lower-cased ones, so "triangular diplomacy" is not only a non-solution is is also a non-compromise. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
• I don't understand how you can say about the Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band#Straw Poll, that it was "33 for lowercase and 21 for capitalized", and then say it was "less than 2% support". Could you explain? Or is this about how the poll was worded?--andreasegde (talk) 20:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • About the comment added above. If you are now saying it is about the word "maintain", instead of Oppose or Support, then something is amiss. Polls (and it was misleading), are normally conducted in a simple way. To quote the third option is to ignore the basics of a Poll. Editors did complain about the use of the third word.--andreasegde (talk) 20:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
• You say (about future the/The arguments), "This will be true no matter what the outcome is." This is saying you fully expect there to be more arguments about the/The in the future. This is incomprehensible to me, but seems to be very destructive to the future stability of Wikipedia. Minimising the problem is the only way forward. If one side is enforced, arguments about the problem will continue forever. Would this be good for Wikipedia?--andreasegde (talk) 20:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
• Disagree I also found that straw poll unclear; on a quick read of the comments at the time, it appeared to me to be going over the original territory once again, inexplicably asking for the umpteenth time if we preferred the upper or lower case. Yes, on looking closer now I see the obscurely worded maintain-the-compromise option, but since that was always a compromise position, if we were being asked which way we thought it should be, I had to oppose the proposition that we go with the lower case. If I had realized that, I would have clarified my comment to say I'd accept the compromise if the upper case (consensus for which was earlier reached, as I recall) was not upheld. First choice, second choice. So I think it is irrelevant what people said in that flawed straw poll, which was brought at a particularly questionable time. And it's particularly troubling to base this mediation on that poll. Tvoz/talk 06:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't understand the consternation concerning the mediators' decision. Any editor who wants to can write in accordance with the spirit of the "compromise." Nobody is saying that a person has to use "the/The Beatles" in mid-sentence. Using pronouns etc. is just fine; it might very well result in more graceful prose, much of the time. But, as a big fan of the compound sentence, having to operate under the restriction of always avoiding the band's name in an independent clause is too confining. So we need a definite decision on "the/The" -- one or the other.Jburlinson (talk) 22:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
• Disagree Concur with Tvoz regarding the confusion over the various polls, more flaws than the Empire State in the end. The only workable viable solution proved to be the compromise where at least editors of both persuasions could work together; that was progress, this isn’t. Remember: not even published authors can agree on this. --Patthedog (talk) 17:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. As Jburlinson says, we need a decision. Once there is one, no point in giving unnecessary offence. It's just a recommendation: it needs to be treated in that spirit, not as inspiration for further argument. Rothorpe (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
• disagree the latest straw poll/RFC was written in such a biased manner that the results should be considered invalid. Also, the compromise was working until one editor got his panties in a bunch about the issue. Hot Stop 23:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment The consensus for the past several months has been to minimize the band's name as I just did. I have always stated the The Beatles should be called "The Beatles" with 'the' capitalized for legal reasons because "The Beatles" is a registered trade mark of Apple Corps Ltd. The Beatles' official web site capitalises the T as well as you can see on the current home page at [8]. The T/t war had gone on for several years and the war had been reviving itself again and again and again. According to Wikipedia, trade marks must be capitalised as shown at [9]Steelbeard1(talk) 04:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, no replying to each other's posts for the moment, please. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 05:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This reference to "legal reasons" is important to Wikipedia for what reason? Do you think Apple Corps will sue? If they will not sue, if they have no case, there is no need to bring up the trademark. Binksternet (talk) 05:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Statement from Binksternet

Rather than email a statement, I choose to post one.

In light of the dissension about what should be in Wikipedia's manual of style, I think we should look outside of Wikipedia. I will quote the Chicago Manual of Style (CMoS) of 2003 because I have a copy. In section 8.73 on page 338 it discusses institutions and companies, addressing the question of "what to capitalize". It says:

"A the preceding a name, even when part of the official title, is lowercased in running text.

Fortunately for our dispute, it gives as examples the Beatles, the Beach Boys and the Grateful Dead, but it says to capitalize the stylized the of Tha Eastsidaz. The CMoS guideline for trademarks and brand names in sections 8.162 and 8.163 does not mention the Beatles or any other band, nor does it address an initial the in a trademark. Other parts of the CMoS hold the same position about the in running text; for instance, the section 8.160 says to lowercase the initial the in running text when writing about periodicals such as the New York Times and the Chicago Tribune. (The guideline further states that a lowercase the at the beginning of a periodical name does not get italicized.) This sort of the can be dropped for reading flow. One exception is the title of an article, book, poem, film, opera, play or other work, which always uses a capital "T" in the initial the in running text, such as "The Foo" (unless "Foo" works better with surrounding syntax and the formal "The Foo" can be found in footnotes or the bibliography.) Another exception is the city called The Hague in the Netherlands.

The CMoS is not the final word, of course. Wikipedia has often drawn from CMoS and has just as often drawn from other guides. The Oxford style guide likely addresses the issue, but I do not own a copy. I can infer the Oxford position by this usage in The Oxford History of English: "the golden age of the Beatles". Other style guides agree, including Fowler's Modern English Usage in which the Beatles are given as an example as lowercase the in running text. There is not one external style guide which recommends a capital The Beatles in running text. We should change Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music#Names (definite article) to fit with the normal standard of the English-speaking world. Binksternet (talk) 18:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Does, "Sorry, no replying to each other's posts for the moment, please" mean nothing? Please respect the mediators. Very bad form, indeed.--andreasegde (talk) 18:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC) My comments have just been deleted, so I reverted. Does Binksternet think he can do that?--andreasegde (talk) 19:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC) I have formally added myself to the mediation today. This is my statement to the mediators, just like your emailed statement. It is not something for you to dispute. Binksternet (talk) 19:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC) You may have noticed that you are a tad late. Adding your comments after a request by the mediators to not do so is to wilfully ignore their polite request. Deleting comments by another user on a talk page is very bad form, and you know that.--andreasegde (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC) Your effort to police my participation is misguided, and you have misunderstood the nature of my statement. Earlier today I was invited to add my name and submit a statement. Please stop interfering. Let the mediators police the mediation. Binksternet (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

New proposed solution

Hello all — first, we wish to thank you all for your continued input. We sincerely appreciate your efforts to resolve this.

That said, the disagreements in this case are not trivial. When we, the mediators, proposed abandoning the compromise, we did not anticipate the level of controversy this would arouse. We have paid close attention to the objections to our decision. Although our personal views have not changed, it is clear that abandoning the compromise option at this stage would be tantamount to abandoning the mediation.

As the participants are aware, leaving this unresolved runs the risk that this will end up at Arbcom. This is in nobody's interest, even if the arbitrators rule in favor of your preferred style: the necessity of the case would represent a failure of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, and the case could result in sanctions on the editors or articles involved. There is no reason this should happen. We, Mr. Stradivarius and Feezo, sincerely believe that you are all here in good faith, and after hearing your concerns, propose a new solution as follows:

Episode IV: A New Poll

In order to accurately gauge broader community opinion, it has been suggested that we run a new RfC/poll. The wording, placement, and structure would be carefully worked out in advance, and agreed to by all parties. A definitive result could settle the issue just as effectively as arbitration, but would be a victory for the process of consensus-based dispute resolution, and would ultimately strengthen Wikipedia in the long term.

Some suggestions for structuring the poll, which can later be refined:

1. We will agree in advance on the placement of the poll, its exact wording, the time it will run, and how to publicize it.
2. Three options: "The", "the", and "neither", clearly labeled, with no "support/oppose" dualism.

   We'll work out the exact wording in the discussion of the poll options. ("We" includes everyone here — that is, the poll options will be something all parties to the mediation agree on.)

3. Make it clear that a vote for one option rejects the other two is exclusively for that option. While there is merit for a poll where participants can vote for multiple options in order of preference, this adds a layer of complexity that could be confusing.
4. The "neither" option would mean mandatory avoidance of "The/the Beatles" in running text.
5. The results would be determined by a trusted third party agreed to by the parties to the mediation. The mediators will not make the decision, as they have already given their opinion on one of the poll options.
6. A fourth party could optionally be appointed to independently evaluate the third party's decision, if any of the participants wish to appeal it. He or she would have the final say on the issue.
7. We may also, with your agreement, decide that after creating the poll, the parties will not participate in it beyond voting and making their statements. This is to ward off the potential for claims that a party attempted to influence the results by "badgering" their opposition.

"Badgering" is a contentious label for editors who are perceived as excessively arguing with their opponents in a "!vote" such as AfD or RfA. The mediators will never use the term themselves. However, by abstaining from participation in the poll, the parties will be protected from any possible claim, from any editor, that they engaged in "badgering". Basically, this means that once the arguments have been presented, it will be up to the community at large to decide.

Another option is to agree that the parties will abstain from statements entirely, participating only with their vote. The idea is that the different viewpoints would be represented entirely in the poll options.

As far as giving this teeth, this is up to yourselves and the community at large. If the poll is decisive, then persistent arguing will likely be seen as a user conduct issue rather than a content dispute. A close vote would be more problematic. We could decide that the result would be binding on the parties here, but this would have to be a unanimous decision by the parties, and would not include other editors. However, a close vote and high participation would mean that the case is probably ripe for arbitration. (See previously rejected case [10])

It is hoped that these suggestions will allow us to create a neutral, unbiased poll that will give a true picture of Wikipedia's position on the issue. We invite you to add your thoughts below.

Again, thank you all for your patience in this matter. For the mediators, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 07:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Update

Wonderful! Thank you all for your prompt responses. I've amended the above list to address the comments below. If you want to update your comments, probably the most logical format is to just reply to your own post, indicating whether the revised list addresses your concerns. Meanwhile, we should begin writing out the poll options. Anyone is free to start — just create a section below with the name of the option and the arguments/evidence for it. Remember, your audience is the wider Wikipedia, so be polite, persuasive, and sincere.

Also, since the idea is to come up with poll options we can all agree on, I think we can relax the current restrictions on replying to other people's comments — as long as the discussion is focused on how to present the arguments in the poll options, rather than on the arguments themselves. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 09:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Your thoughts

• Can you please number the points above, so as to make it easier to agree/disagree with them? For example: I agree with the first [1] point, but the second [2] is problematic. BTW, I thank you both for proposing this.--andreasegde (talk) 07:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

   Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 07:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with [1] completely. If [2] said something like, "a: The Beatles, b: the Beatles, or c: Minimising mid-sentence: the band/group/they/all four Beatles, etc.". Not sure about the word "reject" in [3]: Maybe, "Choosing the option that would be acceptable to both sides"? Totally agree with [5] and [6], but [7] could say make a "short statement". Can it be agreed by all parties that WP:Canvassing should definitely NOT be allowed in the poll (apart from the people listed here?) I realise that using Wiki-mail can circumvent that (sad, but true), but it would make this whole thing more neutral.

IMO, no arguments should be presented for/against.--andreasegde (talk) 11:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• I don't have any issues with this proposal in principle, but why should we assume that it would bring about any more permanent a solution than any of the various polls and RfCs to date? What kind of proverbial teeth does such a solution have when it represents nothing more than a consensus and everyone knows that consensus can change? This is why I have consistently advocated for a solution being imposed from outside the standard venues for discussion and consensus building. As long as someone disagrees with the way things are being done, sometime or somewhere, this nonsense is going to flare up again and again, unless the decision is definitive and binding (preferably indefinitely so). Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support All the points seem pretty good to me. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 10:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support this entirely. Hot Stop 15:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support -- let's do this thing.Jburlinson (talk) 19:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Sounds like a fine solution, I especially like the last point about !voting (with a statement) but not commenting further. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support, though I do share Evanh's concerns. (I'll be offline for 10 days.) Rothorpe (talk) 01:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support; too bad the process is drawn out longer. Binksternet (talk) 03:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment It mostly looks fine to me, but I could use some clarifcation on point 7 regarding the term "badgering the opposition." Steelbeard1 (talk) 04:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support --Patthedog (talk) 06:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support as amended Sorry for delay in response. Looks good with the changes. Tvoz/talk 15:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support the amended version, with cautious optimism. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: everyone who participated in the recent Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band#Straw Poll and Talk:The Beatles#.22The.2Fthe.22 discussion and straw poll July 2012 discussions needs to be contacted about whatever action arises from this. GFHandel ♬  22:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - I agree with GFHandel's comment above, and I would also suggest, if protocol allows, that everyone who participated in the most recent polls be notified of the new poll by the mediators. It is my understanding that this would not constitute canvassing since all the recent !voters are now involved parties, perhaps I am mistaken about this. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment -- If this vote is going to have long-lasting and far-reaching consequences (as it well should), it needs to be heavily publicised. Not just by contacting users who engaged in similar discussions in the past, but on a community-wide level. Via noticeboards, watchlist notices, and by any other practical means. The decision needs to be definitive, and if only a small cross-section of the community is taking part, the chances are far greater that someone else is going to come along at a later date and complain that they weren't consulted or didn't know it was taking place. Get that out of the way early. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
• Agree with Evan, this new poll will need as much exposure as possible and I think he is correct to suggest the mediators post notices in as many places as would increase it's profile. We need as many !votes as possible to judge as broad a consensus as possible. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: 1: The whole section below should be deleted and left to the mediators; it is far too complicated. The mediators stressed earlier that this should not happen. I personally do not like steam-roller tactics. 2: People who are in this mediation are encouraged to make comments, but other comments should be stricken. Otherwise, everybody and his grandmother will be in here pushing it one way or the other. Not nice.--andreasegde (talk) 10:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment "Meanwhile, we should begin writing out the poll options. Anyone is free to start — just create a section below with the name of the option and the arguments/evidence for it." I assumed that was what was meant. I could be wrong. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

True, but making it as simple as possible to avoid confusion is not what is going on below. We are discussing a poll with three options, not the Bill of Rights. It was suggested above that a "statement" should be made, and not a speech to parliament.--andreasegde (talk) 11:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Andreasegde, you have still not provided even one specific example or suggestion of where the poll's clarity could be increased and/or the potential for confusion caused by it decreased. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Making a poll that is simple, brief, easy to understand and clear. Stop the steamroller.--andreasegde (talk) 05:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Please stop with the personal attacks, there is no need to call anyone names here. I'll ask you nicely, please reconsider your delivery and start collaborating on the poll, there is work to be done. For example, shouldn't you be drafting an arguments for "The" rationale? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Please stop complaining about personal attacks and converse. We are not here to draft "arguments", but to find a simple solution for a poll that everybody agrees with. I agree with Jburlinson's method, which is to propose ideas within a conversation.--andreasegde (talk) 05:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3